Fact Check: Brady Hoke's Red Aversion

So Brady Hoke vowed to Adam Rittenberg he'd never worn red as as a head coach despite the fact both of his jobs were at schools that kinda sorta prioritized said color. This is hard to believe, so I paged through Google Images until porn started coming up on a search for "Brady Hoke ball state"—the definitive signal your search has ended—and A-HA:

Yeah… that's the best I could do. Red tie at an introductory press conference. There is also this:

In all other pictures Rittenberg's Johnny Cash reference is dead on. Getty has nothing. Hoke really did go through his Ball State career neverputtingontheschool'sprimarycolor as anything more than an embarrassing accent. I should probably find that juvenile or something but it pokes my fan button. This is a man who gets it. What is it? If you don't know, you don't get it. Sucks to be you, buddy.*

*[Strong possibility "it" is "black is slimming." Also, the last four sentences are the plot of Atlas Shrugged.]

Hey so, this is the 2nd time this book has come to my attention this week. Admittedly, I'd never heard of it before... I know it's a long read, but can anyone vouch and say it's worth it? I have ADD when it comes to reading long books, but just wondering what folks thought.

Having no idea what the book was about, I read up to page 30 on 3 different occasions and also thought the book sucked. Who is John Galt? Who the hell cares.

But it was a birthday present so I finally committed to reading more...and now it is currently my favorite book...not as a literary work, but as a cool explanation of philosophy with some decent plot. It was idealistic in a way, but Rand made some good points and, having read several other of her books (not Fountainhead yet), I really respect her intelligence and female audacity. She really stuck her neck out in a time where it didn't seem like many women did that. I hope her book helps provide a few good ideas to mankind.

But what really is mankind? To finish with a Jack Handey...

Maybe in order to understand mankind we have to look at that word itself. MANKIND. Basically, it's made up of two separate words "mank" and "ind." What do these words mean? It's a mystery and that's why so is mankind.

I'm not shy about my hate for Ayn Rand, but I do appreciate her audacity in saying what she said and doing what she did as a woman in her time. Fountainhead rape scene controversy aside, she was an admirably ballsy lady.

I think a good novel would be where a bunch of men on a ship are looking for a whale. They look and look, but you know what? They never find him. And you know why they never find him? It doesn't say. The book leaves it up to you, the reader, to decide. Then, at the very end, there's a page that you can lick and it tastes like Kool-Aid.

It is a very good book, but it is also a very conservative book in that it talks a lot about big government encroaching on corporations to the point of nationalization. Ayn Rand is firmly against big government.

Whether or not you agree with smaller government, it lays out Rand's arguement for small government in story form.

It does get very wordy at times, especially the "John Galt Speech".

Bottom line, I highly recommend it.

If you don't want to read 1,000 pages, you can read Fountainhead, which is, basically, a shortened version.

Nitpick, it's a very libertarian book. Conservative would imply something different. Basically the book is very socially liberal and very economically conservative.

Fountainhead is the better plot, but it's not the same as Atlas. Fountainhead deals with individualism and egoistic ethics, and Atlas deals with literally everything, but centers on economic philosophy. I would reccommend Fountainhead to see if you would even come close to liking Atlas.

Another nitpick, it's a very Objectivist book. Rand's philosophy has some similarities to libertarainism, but there are plenty of forms of libertarianism that don't carry Rand's metaphysical baggage with them.

It is, and Rand (or some on the libertarian side) would be pissed at me for saying that. But to someone who doesn't follow libertarianism with a microscope, libertarian is sufficient as a label, IMO. Atlas itself isn't that Objectivist, compared to libertarian.

I never finished it, so you might be right. I think anyone interested in libertarianism ought to read Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. It's the best defense of a philosophically coherent version of libertarianism I've come across, and doesn't have all the unpalatable Randian extras.

Obviously it's not fiction, but as far as I could get into Rand's fiction, the story is just a prop for her philosophy anyway.

Nozick is great, as is Murray Rothbard. There are better examples in economists as well.

Agreed that the Rand as a person stuff got wayyyyyyy too much in the way of the ideas for my liking. Talking from an academic standpoint, not trying to ignite a conversation about specifics here.

BTW the Objectivist as apart from "mainstream" libertarianism didn't come around until after Atlas, when she got into writing specifically philosophy books. It's minarchy/anarchy and a few ethical differences where the two split. Honestly, they're not that different from an outside perspective. If a libertarian was given the choice of living in an Objectivist society in place of modern day, or vice versa, I think most would see improvement more than their differences.

Ultimately I think Nozick fails (well, at least fails to convince me) because so much of his argument is dependent on the Lockean labor theory of property, which I don't think really provides a defensible foundation for a system of allowable inequities. I think the requirement that a system can allow natural resources to be unequally allocated as long as no one is made less well off by the inequity is too weak to result in a just society.

I would prefer something like Rawls' (No, not that Rawls) proposal that inequities are allowable only insofar as they improve the predicament the least well off.

I wonder if that's sufficiently abstract to dodge the no politics rule.

Rawls' theory has some foundational problems as well (mainly that the level of risk averseness (is that a word?) he ascribes to people behind the Veil of Ignorance doesn't match empirical work on people's actual willingness to accept risk and uncertainty) so I wouldn't endorse the whole theory. But on this narrow issue I definitely prefer it to Nozick.

I assume you are a reasonable guy, but its the board, so who knows. To avoid a potential meltdown that could devolve into prohibited political discussion, I will just say that I did not intend this as a comment on anyone's political or religious beliefs. I view this literature and its message as separate and apart from those. Nevertheless, to those who don't, I apologize and retract my comment.

It is a very long read, and admittedly, some of the text can be a bit long winded, but it is a great book.

I am someone that tries not to get too into politics - there are things that I like and dislike about both parties - but I found the book to be not only entertaining, but also thought provoking.

Good clarification, Justingoblue. While the book is embraces by many republicans and conservatives because of its anti-big-government message, it is not a conservative / republican book. It is libertarian. The book basically sets out to illustrate what the author believes to be the dangers of a society in which the government over-regulates and over-intrudes into life.

For those who have not yet read it, I highly recommend it. And, at 1000 pages, it should just get you through this interminable off-season.

mostly on going to the logical conclusions of objectivism-- they're on board to a point. Legalization of drugs and prostitution are advocated by objectivists, because after all, those are business transactions entered into by willing parties. But pure capitalism isn't really a conservative thing.

Has a one day holiday from the ban on political discussions on MGoBlog been declared? That's cool.. I feel free, like I was just let out of my Supermax cell to step outside for 30 minutes in those gated pens they let the really bad dudes have a wander in.

Or maybe they don't have those at Supermax facilities. I don't really know, I never watch CNBC on Friday nights.

I don't think political theory discussion has ever been that taboo as long as there aren't value judgements being made. Saying, Objectivists think A isn't about to start a flame war, where saying "I hate/love what that terrible/awesome senator did" will.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "shitty" but I wouldn't ever read it for the story. The plot isn't even close to the attraction because like you said, it frankly isn't that great. It's hampered with too much philosophy to make an easy read.

Well the plot in a broad, overarching way was great. After reading it, I did like the plot. Getting through it the first time, I can't say I loved the plot, and even if I did it was probably for...other reasons than the literary value of her readability in that case.

It really is. Atlas Shrugged is 1,300 pages (in the original edition) and tries to go through all five branches of philosophy, and at times does a poor job integrating those ideas into a literary plot. Fountainhead is ~700 (in the original) and deals with one branch of philosophy.

Take out the philosophy/politics and Fountainhead is still a more interesting premise, IMO.

Cosign. I prefer Atlas Shrugged, having read both. Atlas Shrugged is a great book, even if you don't agree with the philosophy. And as others have said, Ayn Rand's philosophy is Objectivism. There are societies/organizations which carry on the tradition, and look to her and a handfull of her contemporaries as their forefathers. My understanding is that it is an offshoot of libertarianism. A man named Leonard Peikoff (sp?) who was Rand's lover, even though they were both married, carried it on following her passing; I believe the magazine Reason, which has an online outlet now, was started by Objectivists/Rand acolytes in the 1950's.

I don't necessarily agree with Rand's philosophies; I'd describe it as "life's a race, the individual is king, and if you don't win the race, don't fret that you lost, but be in awe of the winner, and find virtue in trying your hardest, because the highest human virtue is in working." Or something like that. FTR, Rand grew up in the USSR and emigrated to the U.S., and a lot of her hatred (too strong? hmm...maybe) of collectivism stemmed from her childhood experiences following the Bolshevik revolution.

I'd say Objectivism is under the libertarian umbrella, though an Objectivist would disagree. The basic tenants of egoism and individual freedom are there, and that's what would make me describe it that way. Think of Objectivism as a specific kind of Christianity, if that makes sense.

Yes, there are several places that continue Objectivist thought today. Your description is off of mine, because I would venture to say that I see the world more (not exactly, just more) like her than you do. I would describe it as: "we need to appreciate people who are gifted, because they are the ones we owe all of modern society to."

No; hatred is not too strong. I think she might think it's not a strong enough word.

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

Regardless of philosophy, I think Atlas Shrugged is an awful read. Rand's writing is poor, the characters are paper-thin (they're not characters, but simply ciphers through which Rand inelegantly spouts her philosophy), and the story is ridiculous and boring. So as a novel, it's piss poor.

As far as Rand's objectivist philosophy, Scotthany sums it up pretty well in the thread Six Zero linked to when he said:

Atlas Shrugged is the book that helps you rationalize being a selfish asshole when you're 17. Sure, it has some valid points, but it's pretty strawman heavy. So read it, but read it with a discerning mind.

Obviously a lot of people disagree, but I think her philosophy is pretty awful and poorly thoughtout. Between her ridiculous, inarticulate ideas and her ridiculous, inarticulare writing, I'd say it's not worth reading.

GoBlueInTX, I like your posting, and you can certainly think whatever you want about Rand and her philosophy, but I'd be careful making value judgements about her ideas here.

For me, I'm not the biggest fan of Rand and some of her specific ideas, but that philosophy touches a whole lot of other philosophical thought that I really do like. Doing something so simple as to just call names isn't very productive, IMO, and alienates some people who think the same way you do.

Just giving my opinion. Clearly a lot of people would disagree with my take on her philosophy, otherwise she wouldn't be as popular as she is. Willywill9 was asking whether or not it's worth reading, I just was saying that I think it's emphatically not worth the time. I didn't call anyone any names (aside from Rand, herself, I guess, but I'm OK with that).